About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. senator chuck hagel faced a hostile reception today from half of the committee that must sign off before he can become secretary of defense. his senate confirmation hearing centered heavily on criticism from his one-time republican colleagues. the atmosphere was friendly enough at the outset as chuck hagel began his big day before the armed services committee. he quickly sought to allay concerns on both sides about his positions on everything from iran to israel to nuclear weapons. >> no one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record. my overall world view has never changed: that america has and must maintain the strongest military in the world. >> i believe, and always have, that america must engage, not retreat, in the world, but engage in the world. my record is consistent on these points. >> woodruff: but as a nebraska senator, in 2007, hagel angered fellow republicans when he opposed the surge of u.s. troops into iraq. today, his former close friend, arizona senator john mccain made clear, they haven't forgotten. >> wer
and panetta got along fabulous. >> warner: speak of secretary of defense, chuck hagel who david, president wants to be, the secretary of defense, hearing yesterday confirmation hearing before the senate, pretty rough going. what did you take away from that. >> i thought it was terrible. i thought he did a very poor job. we interviewed him, mark and i said nice things about him. i internal enjoyed the interviews hi with him but he really did a bad job. he projected weakness which is not something you want in a secretary of defense. conot even respond to pressure from senators with any divorce or vigor. he project aid guy who hadn't prepared. some of these questions were obvious about the surge, about some of the things he said on al jazeera. you have to have an answer. it's like somebody without walks into a big home of their life without having done their homework. so i still think he will be confirmed. on more or less party-line votes but if it was up to sort of a looking for a boost of, a sign of confidence this was not it. >> woodruff: how do you see? >> i disagreement i thought he was
or is it with chuck hagel, john brennan, john kerry? >> it's all the president. the president picks the people that he puts around him, too. with respect to chuck hagel and brennan, defense and c.i.a. just in the last week, their performance in front of the committees that have to confirm them has been pretty poor and that's not my judgment, that's the judgment of senators on both sides of the aisle. >> if you were in the senate would you vote against confirmation of chuck hagel? >> i would. >> rose: there are those who argue that this is personal with respect to chuck hagel because he said what he said with respect to the surge. is it for you personal? >> no, it's not personal for me. i presided or participated in the senate policy, republican policy for eight years. every tuesday when i was in town and i can't recall ever seeing chuck in one of those lunches. he wasn't sort of a very active participant as best i can tell from my perspective. i do believe that there are people that are far better qualified than he is to be -- >> rose: doesn't have the president some choice in determining who he ought
. that crisis is high on the agenda of the next defense secretary. chuck hagel was asked about it during questioning about his job. there was questioning by john mccain about the surge in iraq. >> or you correct or incorrect when you say it -- when you said that the search would be the most dangerous foreign-policy disaster sense the non? the question is right or wrong. i would like the answer of whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer. >> let the record show that you refused to answer the question. >> if you would like me to explain, -- >> i actually would like an answer. >> what else did we learn from today's hearing a short time ago? he did not do the best job of defending himself. >> no, it was a fractious hearing and pointless. he referred to the government of iran as legitimately elected. he apologized for saying that israel had arranged a slaughter of its enemies. he was defending his views on iran. on israel, they think he is not friendly enough. in the end, i don't think we learned a lot about him, really
conditions we're outside the united states and in people's computers. if you talk to mike hagel he'll say this is a problem for us. he can go to china and say stop your spying. we do it too. we don target economic entities. we don't target corporations and not stealing the economic research of dupont or intel. we do what they consider traditional spying. the chinese don't and that's a distinction we make. whether china sees it that way or not is an entirely different question. >> rose: how do they know we make that distinction. >> i think there are set of laws under which nsa operates and those laws make it relatively clear the kinds of targets that you have. but if you think about it, we also don't have the system. if we were to take for example some secrets of you know a new jet liner that airbus is making. we typically don't have a system that works that way. we don't pick winners and loser. >> in enact the government knows a lot of stuff they don't tell companies. if they could communicated better with companies about who is hacking them that would go a long time. >> rose: sometimes
chuck hagel i would argue, is the most pro iran engagement u.s. national security cabinet since the 1979 revolution. this is an administration which desperately does want to do a deal with iran to diffuse the nuclear issue and to gradually reduce our footprint in the middle east. they certainly don't want to the go to war. and i'm not sure if ayatollah khamenei understands this is going to be the best deal he's going to get from the united states. >> suarez:. >> brown: well, the demands for the u.s. and others seems fairly clear and the push for sanctions go on. the iranians say they want the sanctions lifted first. so have you heard anything that suggests it's a sort of vicious cycle in that regard? >> this has also been a perennial challenge that synchronizing negotiations, who makes the first overture, but it's not within the realm of possibilities that the u.s. congress or president obama is going to remove sanctions before the negotiations start and i do see the two sides still being quite far away before any resolution can be reached. >> brown: you do? you don't see any particular
nomination than was chuck hagel the week before. he was far more confident, far more informed, authoritative. but this is the first time it was ever debated, the subject. i mean it's gone undebated. and i have to concede that much of the criticism, i think from conservative press is absolutely valid. if this were george w. bush and dick cheney and we had increased by sixfold the number of unmanned attacks on other countries that are not combatant countries, that were not at war with, there would have been far more hue and cry. and it is interesting that the president, the only criticism in the president seems to be among a few liberals, and the support seems to be from people like john bolton-- and so it's a debate i think we have to have, we should have and it's been cloaked in secrecy and secrecy is the sacrosanct secular religion of this city. >> woodruff: so this has stirred it up? >> i think so, because of the leaked memo and the system, we are having a debate about drones. and i guess if i want a drone policy i want it run by a franciscan, not a jesuit. but he didn't really defend it,
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)